Leica Look

[Anthony MD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, are you suggesting, Leica manufactures lenses no differently from the other companies and all lenses have the same optical qualities no different from each other negating a Leica Look…?

[costa43]

2 minutes ago, evikne said:

I think the names of these profiles must have been given with a certain twinkle in the eye. They play on the expression, which they were obviously familiar with. But it's probably more humorous than serious.

Yes I think so. I sense Leica has a sense of humour with these things. The ‘Real KOB’ was also used in marketing the steel rim re-issue if I remember correctly.

[Anthony MD]

12 minutes ago, costa43 said:

Yes I think so. I sense Leica has a sense of humour with these things. The ‘Real KOB’ was also used in marketing the steel rim re-issue if I remember correctly.

Well, Leica must have a distinct look after all, they have many followers…👀

Edited August 10 by Anthony MD

[250swb]

4 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

What I learned and have reasonable belief in is Leica manufactures an M lens for optimal performance for the rangefinder flange distance.  This distance incorporates a design that uses less glass which produces more micro contrast and less aggressive sharpness called the Leica Look…👀

You've actually got that wrong, Contax and Nikon rangefinder lenses have more micro contrast than Leica. It is why the American photographer David Douglas Duncan used Nikkor lenses on his Leica rangefinder and latterly why so many people pick out Contax G lenses as having a special character that Leica lenses don't have.

[Stef63]

If the famous “Leica Look” really comes from M-lenses and their “simple design,” then what about the Summilux-R 80mm — same optical design as the Summilux-M 75mm but with a different flange distance? Still Leica Look or not? S-lenses are sharper but said to keep the M-look, the "Leica Look"?  APO SL lenses are razor-sharp with microcontrast for days — which, from what I read here, should kill the Leica Look because the Leica Look is not overly sharp.  And if I put an M-lens on an SL, does it survive the flange change or vanish instantly? Oh, and rebranded M-mount lenses like the Summicron-C 40mm — which has both Leitz and Minolta versions — which one’s got the magic?

Still confused, but if Thorsten Overgaard says it exists, it must be as real as Bigfoot with a red dot. 

[Anthony MD]

22 minutes ago, Stef63 said:

If the famous “Leica Look” really comes from M-lenses and their “simple design,” then what about the Summilux-R 80mm — same optical design as the Summilux-M 75mm but with a different flange distance? Still Leica Look or not? S-lenses are sharper but said to keep the M-look, the "Leica Look"?  APO SL lenses are razor-sharp with microcontrast for days — which, from what I read here, should kill the Leica Look because the Leica Look is not overly sharp.  And if I put an M-lens on an SL, does it survive the flange change or vanish instantly? Oh, and rebranded M-mount lenses like the Summicron-C 40mm — which has both Leitz and Minolta versions — which one’s got the magic?

Still confused, but if Thorsten Overgaard says it exists, it must be as real as Bigfoot with a red dot. 

You’re right, the Leica Look doesn’t exist, it’s a hoax…!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not a hoax, but the expression of satisfaction by its users.  

1 minute ago, Anthony MD said:

Still confused, but if Thorsten Overgaard says it exists, it must be as real as Bigfoot with a red dot. 

🤣🤣

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

So, are you suggesting, Leica manufactures lenses no differently from the other companies and all lenses have the same optical qualities no different from each other negating a Leica Look…?

No, they don't have the same optical qualities, but the laws of optics are the same and the tools are the same. All lens designs are compromises, both the calculating of the optical formula and the choices of the mechanical design. The level to which these compromises are taken determines the outcome and the lens character.
A lens can be optimal optical quality, small and light, and cheap, but never these three things at the same time.  The M lenses must be small, as they will block the viewfinder, so the compromise is to disregard the cheap component, other manufacturers (and Leica for the SL series) shift the emphasis to making lenses larger as there is no reason to keep them small, making them less expensive or of high quality.  
Flange distance does not come into it, but I can see where this confused conflation comes from.  There is the matter of positioning the exit pupil in a position where the exit angle of light will be within the acceptance angle of the sensor.  This was less of a concern with film, so M ( and SL) sensors must be designed to be retrocompatible to a number of vintage M lenses. Leica lenses since about 2006 have been more tele centric (small exit angle) because of this design parameter. 

[pgk]

2 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

So, are you suggesting, Leica manufactures lenses no differently from the other companies and all lenses have the same optical qualities no different from each other negating a Leica Look…?

Its long been known that Leica source materials from the Knotty Ash mines and these have properties unlike any others used in optical manufacture.

[Anthony MD]

3 hours ago, Stef63 said:

If the famous “Leica Look” really comes from M-lenses and their “simple design,” then what about the Summilux-R 80mm — same optical design as the Summilux-M 75mm but with a different flange distance? Still Leica Look or not? S-lenses are sharper but said to keep the M-look, the "Leica Look"?  APO SL lenses are razor-sharp with microcontrast for days — which, from what I read here, should kill the Leica Look because the Leica Look is not overly sharp.  And if I put an M-lens on an SL, does it survive the flange change or vanish instantly? Oh, and rebranded M-mount lenses like the Summicron-C 40mm — which has both Leitz and Minolta versions — which one’s got the magic?

Still confused, but if Thorsten Overgaard says it exists, it must be as real as Bigfoot with a red dot. 

Oh, by the way, I was kidding that the Leica Look doesn’t exist and was a hoax…😁

Edited August 10 by Anthony MD

[Anthony MD]

My first lens used with my Leica M-D 262 was a Zeiss 50mm f/2 Plannar ZM.  Too sharp and clinical for my taste which brought me to the Summicron Rigid.  The Rigid was less clinical and didn’t have the aggressive sharpness found in the Zeiss.  This is an example that the two lenses differed in their rendering of the images…👀

[pedaes]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

Knotty Ash mines

Often wondered what 'KAM' engraved on the edge of elements meant.

Edited August 10 by pedaes

[jgeenen]

Is there something like a well defined Leica look? No. Evidence: Why do some people prefer older Leica lenses because of their "character" while others prefer more modern Leica lenses? Because they have the same look? Probably not. Leica lenses are designed to specifications that have been set by the demands of the camera, the demands of the customer, and the technical capabilities of the time. A Summicron 50mm from 1950 renders differently than the APO-Summicron 50mm from 2010. So no unique Leica look.

Does the number of lenses promote or demote a Leica look? No. Evidence: The Zeiss Planar ZM has 6 lenses in 4 groups, the Summicron rigid from 1956 has 7 lenses in 4 groups. The Planar is said to have a "Zeiss look", the Summicron is said to have a "Leica look". Btw - the latest Summicron-M has 6 lenses in 4 groups - look advantage Leica for the newer Summicron? Ok, one might argue that not one or two lenses make the difference, but 10 lenses would. Fine for me, but that isn't very scientific, is it?

Does the lens flange distance make a difference? No. Evidence: Sony, Nikon, Leica L, and many others have flange distances in the range of Leica M, the look of their new lens designs hadn't changed because of the change of flange distance. 

Is there a relationship between lens count and flange distance? No. Evidence: A Zeiss Planar 2.8/80mm for Rolleiflex SL66 (7 lenses in 5 groups) from 1966 has a flange distance of 102,8mm and is known to be one of the stellar medium format lens designs of the decade (used in Hasselblads, too).

To summarize in short: If you carefully select a subset of Leica lenses, you will find them to have similar optical characteristics and you can happily label this characteristics "Leica Look" (some others might call it "Mandler Look", or "Karbe Look", or "60s Look" or whatever. But if you use a different set of lenses, the resulting look will be different. And if you use a different manufacturer, the resulting look will be again different.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Anthony MD said:

My first lens used with my Leica M-D 262 was a Zeiss 50mm f/2 Plannar ZM.  Too sharp and clinical for my taste which brought me to the Summicron Rigid.  The Rigid was less clinical and didn’t have the aggressive sharpness found in the Zeiss.  This is an example that the two lenses differed in their rendering of the images…👀

I think you made the wrong Zeiss choice there. The Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM is precisely the lens you were looking for. 

[Anthony MD]

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I think you made the wrong Zeiss choice there. The Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM is precisely the lens you were looking for. 

I wasn’t aware of the lens characteristics at the time for digital photography.  I’ve shot film for 30 years and switched to digital for only two years…!

[Anthony MD]

43 minutes ago, jgeenen said:

Is there something like a well defined Leica look? No. Evidence: Why do some people prefer older Leica lenses because of their "character" while others prefer more modern Leica lenses? Because they have the same look? Probably not. Leica lenses are designed to specifications that have been set by the demands of the camera, the demands of the customer, and the technical capabilities of the time. A Summicron 50mm from 1950 renders differently than the APO-Summicron 50mm from 2010. So no unique Leica look.

Does the number of lenses promote or demote a Leica look? No. Evidence: The Zeiss Planar ZM has 6 lenses in 4 groups, the Summicron rigid from 1956 has 7 lenses in 4 groups. The Planar is said to have a "Zeiss look", the Summicron is said to have a "Leica look". Btw - the latest Summicron-M has 6 lenses in 4 groups - look advantage Leica for the newer Summicron? Ok, one might argue that not one or two lenses make the difference, but 10 lenses would. Fine for me, but that isn't very scientific, is it?

Does the lens flange distance make a difference? No. Evidence: Sony, Nikon, Leica L, and many others have flange distances in the range of Leica M, the look of their new lens designs hadn't changed because of the change of flange distance. 

Is there a relationship between lens count and flange distance? No. Evidence: A Zeiss Planar 2.8/80mm for Rolleiflex SL66 (7 lenses in 5 groups) from 1966 has a flange distance of 102,8mm and is known to be one of the stellar medium format lens designs of the decade (used in Hasselblads, too).

To summarize in short: If you carefully select a subset of Leica lenses, you will find them to have similar optical characteristics and you can happily label this characteristics "Leica Look" (some others might call it "Mandler Look", or "Karbe Look", or "60s Look" or whatever. But if you use a different set of lenses, the resulting look will be different. And if you use a different manufacturer, the resulting look will be again different.

The Leica Look is subtle at the least.  It’s an acquired look not everyone sees…👀

[Anthony MD]

4 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

The Leica Look is subtle at the least.  It’s an acquired look not everyone sees…👀

The Zeiss has less groups but more clinical sharpness.  That says a lot when Leica has more groups and less sharpness.  The design of a Leica M lens is in a class of its own…🧐

[jaapv]

22 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

I wasn’t aware of the lens characteristics at the time for digital photography.  I’ve shot film for 30 years and switched to digital for only two years…!

So we don't have a "Leica Look" on film? 🤩

[Anthony MD]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

So we don't have a "Leica Look" on film? 🤩

Why not?

My film camera was a Nikon F2…!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

There is the saying that if somebody buys a camera they become a photographer, but if somebody buys a violin they simply own a violin. 

Fortunately we also have the saying that a good photographer with a bad camera will make better photographs than a bad photographer with a good camera. This should please everybody who values photography over advertising slogans. Buy a Holga and loosen your girdle, you can get the exact same thing as your 'Leica look' in about a one centimetre circle in the centre of the negative, the rest will be out of focus so just like a Noctilux, and they only cost a few $.